Schedule: An Evidence-based Guide for Risk Assessment and Decision-making when Undertaking Background Checking Overview Objective: to inform decision-making about acceptance or exclusion of persons in areas of child-related employment/volunteering. Background checking and risk assessment during recruitment of employees and volunteers is one important measure within suite of policies and practices for developing a child-safe organisation. Community services organisations need to make recruitment decisions which take account of possibility that children may be harmed 1 whilst in ir care or involved with services or programs y provide. The development of guidance in this area is based on paramount consideration for wellbeing of children and ir protection from harm. Providing this protection requires informed decision-making about wher certain persons pose a risk to children. Effective background checking and risk assessment requires evaluating information concerning potential employees and volunteers to assist in selecting appropriate persons for working in child-related areas. Natural justice and procedural fairness demand that re is a rationale for excluding persons from child-related employment/volunteering. Equally, organisations must be accountable for decisions y make, and good governance requires that re are policies and guidelines which provide clear foundations for decision-making. The overriding purpose of this Schedule is to offer guidance to those involved in background checking of employees and volunteers, and to contribute to furr development and refinement of relevant legislation, policy and practice across Australia. The Schedule is not intended to provide a step-by-step guide to risk assessment and decision-making or to prescribe particular assessment processes and tools. It does express national agreement about broad principles, guidelines and key elements to promote risk assessment and decision-making that is ethical, rigorous, consistent and evidence-based. The guidelines are informed by national and international research and reports and reference to systems for background checking and risk assessment which already exist within some jurisdictions. They are framed in response to questions which encompass central aspects of assessment when undertaking background checking. Each State and Territory will determine its legislative or policy approach to minimising likelihood that a person who may pose a risk of harm to children will be engaged in child-related work in an organisation. These guidelines will assist in that process and can be drawn upon in ways which complement existing legislation and policy. The responsibility for application of guidelines at local level resides with each of States and Territories. The Schedule does not assume that range of information used for background checking and risk assessment purposes will be same in each jurisdiction. It also acknowledges that language of risk may not be uniformly used and some jurisdictions may refer to assessment or appraisal of a person s criminal history. Although language may vary, assessment of potential for harm to a child is primary consideration. This Schedule is second in series of national Schedules which express commitments of Creating Safe Environments for Children National Framework agreed upon by Community and Disability Services Ministers in July 2005. It should be read in conjunction with first Schedule: Guidelines for Building Capacity of Child-Safe Organisations to assist organisations in taking a broad multi-faceted approach to creating child-safe environments.
1. Background Checking and Risk Assessment Meaning and Principles 1.1 What do we mean by background checking and risk assessment? Background checking in context of working with children involves obtaining information about potential employees and volunteers, on basis that information is deemed relevant to working in a child-related area. The information gared may include details concerning previous employment and relevant experience; verification of qualifications and professional registration; criminal history information; thorough reference checks; and work history reports. Risk assessment in this context refers to a process of evaluating information received to reach a decision about risk of harm a person may pose to children. It is important to understand distinctions and relationship between risk assessment and suitability assessment. Suitability assessment may refer to a wide range of factors including attitude to physical discipline and acknowledgement of children s developmental status and needs. A person may be deemed not suitable to work with children without automatically implying that person poses a risk of harm to children. Different jurisdictions adopt different systems for undertaking risk assessment when checking background of potential employees and volunteers, and community services organisations must be aware of particular requirements within State or Territory where y operate. A central body may undertake risk assessment and decide wher a person is permitted to be employed/volunteer in a child-related area. Alternatively, a shared decision-making model may be adopted, where risk assessment is undertaken by a centralised agency, and final decision as to wher or not a person should be employed or engaged as volunteer is made by each organisation. Elsewhere, individual organisations may be solely responsible for background checking, risk assessment and decision-making concerning appointment of employees/volunteers. There may be variations within each of se systems over time as part of process of continuous improvement. The critical issue, irrespective of model adopted, is to ensure decision-making concerning wher or not to engage a potential employee or volunteer is rigorous, defensible and transparent. The overriding purpose of all models is to minimise risk of harm to children in ir dealings with community services organisations. Risk assessment in this context refers to a process of evaluating information received to reach a decision about risk of harm a person may pose to children. 1.2 What is role of risk assessment in background checking? The duty of care of an organisation includes obligation to provide a safe environment and to protect individuals from harm which can result from actions of employees or volunteers. Risk assessment when background checking employees and volunteers is part of fulfilling duty of an organisation to act diligently and prudently to prevent actions and behaviour that would be harmful to children. A basic rationale for background checking and risk assessment is that previous behaviour is often an indicator of future behaviour. Risk assessment models in general attempt to identify likelihood of particular adverse events occurring 2 and provide a framework for considering information and promoting consistent decision-making. In assessing risk an individual may pose to children in workplace, a structured approach is appropriate. In human services more generally, research has suggested advantages of structured risk assessment rar than reliance upon unstructured judgement. 3 These benefits include: decisions are able to be made in relation to standardised points of reference that minimise subjective decision-making; structured approaches are more reliable and valid than using professional judgement alone; assumptions on which risk assessment model are based are clearly set out, and may be tested; structured decision-making provides an open way of dealing with information and enables person affected to put forward information and to correct information; and public awareness of existence of structured risk assessment models both acts as a deterrent to possible offenders and reflects values and culture of organisation. Although risk assessment is not a precise science, it is widely accepted that predicting child abuse through a formal risk assessment model is more accurate than leaving it to chance. 4 1.3 What principles should guide risk assessment? Responsible risk assessment seeks to ensure decision-making that is ethical, evidence-based and defensible. This requires following a logical and systematic process. Principles which should govern risk assessment include: paramount consideration is wellbeing of children and ir protection from harm; risk assessment will be conducted by persons who are appropriately trained and properly supported; risk assessment will be recognised as one of a range of organisational strategies to protect children;
risk assessment will be evidence-based, where evidence exists; in all situations risk assessment decisions will be ethical and defensible; assessment and decision-making processes will be efficient and timely; assessment and decision-making processes will follow principles of natural justice and procedural fairness; risk assessment procedure will be transparent, documented, and consistently applied; risk assessment processes will be accompanied by provisions for review and appeal against a decision; and privacy of people will be strictly protected, and sensitive and personal information will be protected from inappropriate disclosure. 2. What is Required for Competent Risk Assessment and Decision-making? It is generally agreed that a mix of knowledge, skills and abilities is needed in any environment where risk assessment takes place. Analytical and investigative skills, a capacity for structured questioning and decision-making, and understanding of settings in which child-related employment/volunteering takes place, are all important. Where possible, re is merit in assessments being based upon multidisciplinary knowledge from corrective services, child protection, psychology and law. Persons responsible for risk assessment may possess this expertise, or it may be gained through consultative arrangements. Responsible risk assessment seeks to ensure decision-making that is ethical, evidence-based and defensible. This requires following a logical and systematic process. Competent risk assessment and decision-making can become embedded in organisations by establishing ongoing training, development and support systems, within a team environment free from influences which are not part of risk assessment process. It is also important that persons responsible for risk assessment are competent in application of natural justice principles and procedures. Depending upon points at which risk may be assessed, a hierarchy of skills may be needed in accordance with implications of decision-making. Where a prohibited employment scheme exists, 5 and re is provision for a person to seek a review of ir status, a higher level of assessment expertise is necessary because risks to children posed by prohibited persons are considered higher. A higher level of skill is also required where re are particular complexities associated with criminal history or or background information concerning an individual. 3. Who Should Undergo a Background Check and Risk Assessment? There are legislative and policy differences between jurisdictions in relation to who is required to undergo a background check and circumstances in which a risk assessment is required. As mentioned above, it is important for community services organisations to be clear about particular requirements in ir State or Territory. There is general agreement that background checking and risk assessment are appropriate where people are working with children in a direct and unsupervised capacity, in work that is considered to be child-related. Most jurisdictions specify those areas of work considered to be child-related and re is some variation. Volunteers working in a range of child-related areas are also frequently included in background checking and risk assessment. In some jurisdictions people who are employed/volunteering may need to undergo a background check and risk assessment where y have indirect contact with children; re is access to information about children; or y are members of boards or management committees. 4. What is Assessed? Risk assessment should be based on information which has been tested, validated or assessed in some way, eir through courts, policing systems, disciplinary panels or or formal processes. Rigorous processes concerning verification of information and documentation of verification and decision-making process, are critically important to integrity of decision-making and ensuring re is an avenue for review and appeal. This requirement is fundamental to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, in addition to being part of ensuring any assessment is based upon reliable information. Organisations undertaking background checking and risk assessment need to pay due regard to State/Territory based legislation and policy, which may govern particular criminal offences or charges which can be taken into account; require that particular factors are considered; or prevent availability of certain information. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) has also produced useful practical guidance on how to prevent criminal record discrimination in workplace. 6 It is understood that re is no discrimination if an applicant is not successful in obtaining a job or promotion because y cannot fulfil essential aspects (inherent requirements) of a particular job. 7 In some community based organisations precise requirements of positions are not always clearly articulated. It is refore of particular importance for child-safe organisations to declare ir commitment to maximising safety of children, and essential requirement for employees and volunteers to share this commitment. It is important that any approach to risk assessment is regularly reviewed and evaluated, to take account of emerging research and professional knowledge base in area of assessing risk posed to children in organisational environments.
4.1 Factors associated with criminal history of an individual A person s criminal history is deemed to provide a reasonable basis on which determinations can be made concerning possible future behaviours. Although re are variations between States and Territories with regard to background checking systems, re is some consistency in relation to type of criminal offences which are identified as posing a potential likelihood of harm to children. Some offences may be taken into account in risk assessment, although y do not target children directly, because y indicate a pattern of behaviour that raises concern for safety of children. In order to inform an evidence-based assessment kinds of questions that could be asked include: 8 What is nature, gravity and circumstances (where known) of offence or charges and how is this relevant to child-related employment/volunteering? How long is it since an alleged offence occurred? What was age of victim of offending behaviour? What was age difference between person and any victim? How serious is applicant s criminal history based upon all information available (for example, wher re is a pattern of offending)? Have applicant s circumstances changed since an offence was committed? What is attitude of applicant to ir previous offending behaviour, and what relevant information can be provided by applicant? What are findings of any assessment reports following attendance at treatment or intervention programs? Has offence been decriminalised in Australia or was it an offence overseas but not in Australia? It is important to note that above list does not provide a prescription for risk assessment. It is intended to draw attention to a range of considerations which should not be overlooked. The HREOC guidelines concerning discrimination in employment on basis of criminal record make following point: The more information available to employer, greater likelihood that an employer can exercise reasonable judgment in assessing connection between criminal record and inherent requirements of job. 9 It is also important to make clear that focus of background checking is upon identifying factors which may pose a risk to children in child-related work settings. People should not be discouraged from applying for a position or volunteering ir services because y believe that criminal history unrelated to any risk to children will automatically preclude m from being accepted. 4.2 Additional relevant background information Research and experience has shown that it may be only when information from a number of sources has been put toger that it becomes clear that a risk of harm exists. 10 In some States and Territories background checks may include additional information beyond criminal history. This information may include employment/disciplinary proceedings; proceedings of professional bodies; child protection records; notification that person is disqualified as an out of home/foster carer; and apprehended violence orders. Where a higher than usual duty of care exists, such as in out of home/foster care and residential settings, or where persons will be working with particularly high risk populations, it may be appropriate to include a broader scope of information in background checking. 4.3 Situational factors Individual and situational characteristics interact to increase or minimise risk of inappropriate behaviour, and both need to be taken into account. Organisational and situational characteristics, vulnerability of specific population groups, and proposed nature of contact with children may be considered in legislation and/or development of risk assessment frameworks. Organisational and situational characteristics, vulnerability of specific population groups, and proposed nature of contact with children may be considered in legislation and/or development of risk assessment frameworks. Specific factors which may be taken into account include: age of children (chronological and developmental) with whom person will be working/volunteering; wher individual will work with children with a disability or particular vulnerability (for example, children who have been abused previously); wher individual will work alone or as part of a team; level and quality of direct supervision; duties undertaken (for example, personal care of children); location of work (for example, a residential/home based setting); and wher individual will work with children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who may have experienced different cultural contexts for certain types of behaviour.
Acknowledging that some community services may be high risk environments associated with working with vulnerable people, overriding factor is wher or not context in which a person may be employed/volunteer presents particular risks. Importantly, Guidelines for Building Capacity of Child-Safe Organisations emphasise need for ongoing risk management in organisations. 5. How can Background Checking and Risk Assessment be responsive to Culture, particularly Indigenous Culture? Additional practical challenges may occur when undertaking background checking and applying se guidelines in Indigenous communities. These challenges include: limited forms of formal identification; people who have been known by, and legitimately use, a variety of names; variations in spelling of names; and relatively high transience. Remote area organisations confront particular challenges such as scarce and sparsely dispersed populations; a comparatively higher proportion of people with criminal histories; communication limitations; and high rates of staff turnover. Whilst acknowledging paramount importance of safety and wellbeing of children, engagement of local communities is essential to translate this guidance into appropriate local practices. Sensitivity is required when introducing formal structures in culturally diverse communities, in an attempt to ensure community is provided with options for implementing requirements. Engagement with local communities is vital to enable adoption of practices which can make a difference at local level. It is particularly important in an environment where disadvantaged children may miss out on social or developmental activities because of relatively high incidence of criminal convictions, to make it clear that focus of background checking is upon identifying factors that may pose a risk to children. Whatever approach to risk assessment, it is important that any restrictions upon employment opportunities are determined by what is necessary to protect children and unintended consequences are avoided. In considering application of background checking and risk assessment among emerging cultural and linguistically diverse communities it is also important to ensure as far as possible that processes used acknowledge particular challenges communities may confront. Consultation and engagement with communities during implementation will be a key factor in ensuring requirements are met. Engagement with local communities is vital to enable adoption of practices which can make a difference at local level. 6. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness In context of employee/volunteer screening, natural justice can be understood to mean that assessment decisions are balanced, fair and The just, more and that information persons have available an opportunity to employer, to have input greater into likelihood decision-making that an employer process as can well exercise as an opportunity reasonable to judgment have in decision assessing independently connection reviewed. between 11 It also criminal means record that and people have inherent a right requirements to know about of any job information 9. that is held about m and could be used to declare m ineligible to be employed/volunteer in a child-related area. A person may be afforded natural justice by being: given opportunity to provide information regarding his or her criminal history, or or information and references, and for this information to be considered; informed of any proposed decision to be made about m; provided with rationale for proposed decision; and given right to have a final assessment decision reviewed by an independent body. 12 Criminal histories, outcomes of disciplinary proceedings of professional registration bodies, and or information that may be taken into account during background checking include sensitive personal information. This information must be treated with respect for privacy of all individuals. Accompanying any risk assessment process, appropriate safeguards must be provided concerning collection, retention, use and disclosure of personal information. People being assessed should be informed about what will happen to any information y provide and who will have access to information. Each child-safe organisation must be fully aware of ir privacy obligations and must take all reasonable steps to ensure y comply with privacy regime that applies to m. In Summary This Schedule of guidelines for risk assessment and decision making when undertaking background checking is a central strategy within public policy framework for creating safe environments for children in community services across Australia. Even most careful recruitment and selection processes do not provide a guarantee of identifying all those persons who may pose a risk to children. However, rigorous recruitment and selection practices create a high threshold for engaging in child-related work, which can deter persons who may pose a risk of harm to children. Continuous improvement directed towards providing robust risk assessment and decision-making will encourage research and ongoing evaluation of existing practices and will draw upon emerging knowledge. Background checking and risk assessment are vital first steps in minimising risk of harm to children in ir dealings with organisations. Coupled with ongoing assessment and risk management, se measures make a significant contribution towards maintaining child-safe environments.
End Notes 1 In context of Creating Safe Environments for Children National Framework, harm means physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse, and neglect of children. 2 Standards Australia/ Standards New Zealand (2004) Risk Management (AS/NZS 4360:2004), Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney, and Standards New Zealand, Wellington. 3 Camasso, M.J. and Jagannathan, R. (1995) Prediction accuracy of Washington and Illinois risk assessment instruments: an application of receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, Social Work Research, Vol.19, No.3, 174 183; Grove, W.M., Zald, D.H., Lebow, B.S., Snitz, B.E. and Nelson, C. (2000) Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis, Psychological Assessment, Vol.12, No.1, 19 30. 4 New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People (2005) Evaluation of Working With Children Risk Assessment Model, Literature Review, pp.i,16. 5 In most jurisdictions re is legislation that prohibits certain persons from employment/volunteering in child-related areas. 6 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (November 2005) On Record: Guidelines for prevention of discrimination in employment on basis of criminal record, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney. 7 Ibid., p.13. 8 Department of Justice, Victoria (2005) Working with Children Bill 2005, Discussion Paper; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (November 2005) above n6. 9 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (November 2005) above n6, p.41. 10 Department of Health, Home Office, Department of Education and Employment (1999) Working Toger to Safeguard Children, Stationery Office, London, p.80; Beyer, L., Higgins, D., and Bromfield, L. (2005) Understanding Organisational Risk Factors for Child Maltreatment A Review of Literature, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, p.86. 11 Department of Community Development, Western Australia (2006) Working with Children Check Assessment Guidelines, p.3. 12 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (November 2005) above n6, p.43; Department of Community Development, Western Australia (2006) above n11, p.3. Selected References Community Affairs References Committee (2004) Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference (2005) Creating Safe Environments for Children Organisations, Employees and Volunteers, National Framework. Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference (2006) Guidelines for Building Capacity of Child-Safe Organisations National Schedule. Davidson, H. (1985) Protection of Children through Criminal History Record Screening; Well-Meaning Promises and Legal Pitfalls, Dickinson Law Review, Vol. 89, No.3: 577-603. Johnson, Kristen (2003) The Working with Children Check Risk Assessment for New South Wales: methods for research, National Council on Crime and Delinquency/Children s Research Center, Madison, Wisconsin. New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People (2004) The Working With Children Check Guidelines, NSW Commission for Children and Young People, Sydney. Queensland Crime Commission, Queensland Police Service (2000) Project Axis (vol 2), Child Sexual Abuse in Queensland: Responses to Problem, Queensland Crime Commission, Brisbane. Royal Commission into New South Wales Police Service conducted by Commissioner: The Hon Justice JRT Wood (1997) New South Wales Police Integrity Commission, Sydney. Smallbone, S. and Wortley, R. (2000) Child sexual abuse in Queensland: Offender characteristics and modus operandi, Queensland Crime Commission and Queensland Police Service, Brisbane. Smith, C. (1995) More than a gut feeling, Social Work Now, No.2, 8 12. Tasmanian Ombudsman (2004) Listen to Children: Review of Claims of Abuse from Adults in State Care as Children, Ombudsman Tasmania, Hobart. The Bichard Inquiry Report (2004) The Home Office, London. Volunteer Canada (2004) Screening: Volunteer Canada s safe steps screening program. Volunteer Canada, viewed 4 May 2004, http://www.volunteer.ca/volcan/eng/content/screening/safe-steps.php?display=4,0